Slashdot Mirror


Linux Gurus and OpenStep gurus collaborate

Anonymous Coward writes "www.DarwinLinux.com is a collaboration between the team at Infomagic (Linux gurus), and the team at TwinForces (WebObjects/OpenStep gurus). The goal is to create a complete distribution on a CD. Incidently, Apple will sync Darwin (Apple's BSD core under OS X) with FreeBSD later this year. "

7 of 103 comments (clear)

  1. Re:It's bad enough ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3

    You make it sound as though Apple is the creator of DarwinLinux. They're not. They clearly stated that Darwin is simply a BSD/Mach UNIX. The "DarwinLinux," aside from the fact that it uses Darwin as a code base, has no direct relationship to Apple.

    The current Mac OS can't be open-licenced, even if Apple wanted to. OpenStep in Mac OS X relies far too much on third party material, most notably Display PostScript. The GUI of Mac OS 8.x isn't based on UNIX at all, so open-sourcing that would be a nightmare. When the Apple-only Mac OS X Consumer is released, Apple will at least have the ability to open-source.

    Further, Darwin included things which were *not* already available. These include HFS+ support, AppleTalk support, and several other items. In other words, it *does* contribute new things.

  2. Re:It's bad enough ... (not Apple's project) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3
    Why are you ignoring the obvious? The fact that these people are calling this thing "DarwinLinux" says to me that this thing should run Linux programs. If it doesn't run Linux programs (ie: binary compatable with Linux on PPC and/or Linux on Intel, respectively) then this thing shouldn't be called Linux. Their use of this name is extremely objectionable, since they are asking people to "port" Linux programs to what is effectively a completely seperate platform.


    If it WERE Linux, there should be no need to "port" the software. All this is doing is diminishing the value of the Linux brand.

  3. DarwinLinux has nothing to do with Linux by Andy+Tai · · Score: 4

    Looks like DarwinLinux is just a porting effort to get the missing Unix software onto Darwin. These are just generic Unix stuff and not Linux-specific. Also no Linux kernel resources are involved. So why use "Linux" in the name? Just to get attention?

    --
    Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
  4. Re:It's bad enough ... by Rubinstien · · Score: 3

    Hmmm,

    Apple can't release the GUI portions under a free license since they don't hold copyright on large portions of it...Display Postscript. There's some NeXT-specific code in there (interceptor, and some compositing operations) but most belongs to Adobe. Adobe refuses to even license DPS for YellowBox on NT. IMHO there are nefarious reasons for this.

    Instead, Apple is developing Quartz, which is a derivative of Adobe PDF with the compositing stuff thrown in, as well as anti-aliasing and the like which were not part of DPS. I'd assert that this code will also not belong entirely to Apple, and will therefore never be opened until Adobe itself is forced to open code.

    This is the primary argument I have for corporations to endorse open code. In no other business that I can think of can a company pull the rug out from a (potential) industry simply by withdrawing a product. If Ford decides to stop selling cars with electronic ignition systems, your existing Ford will keep on running (well, as well as any other Ford). Adobe pulled DPS, which forced DEC to drop it on their products, and will eventually force Sun, IBM, and others to as well. Anything that depends on it (luckily, not much) will die with it next time you upgrade your commercial X server. DEC has done the same with Pathworks/Mac (VMS File Services for Macintosh) on V7.2. You upgrade, your Mac file services are no longer supported. This stinks.

    I personally haven't agreed to the APSL, since I have no hardware that it will (yet) run on. I have browsed the DarwinLinux directories though and have found that there are i386 directories and even some EISA driver code out there. I think Apple has provided the Intel stuff, it is just broken and out of sync right now. Someone will no doubt get it going on Intel soon. I hope that their effort pays off for both Apple and their customers better than any of them could have expected...this would represent the best possible turn of events as it will build pressure inside and out of Apple to open more code.

    Lastly, I'd like to point out that the lack of GUI on Darwin represents fertile ground for some of the interesting GUI projects that have been in the works. Maybe the Berlin people would be interested? A native DGS would be nice for GNUStep... Hmmm. Some unclaimed territory...

  5. That's NETBSD. by perry · · Score: 4

    The OS X userland and TCP stack come from NETBSD, not FREEBSD.

    If you don't believe me, look at the Darwin source code yourself. We've been working with folks from Apple for a long time, and we've been importing most of the improvements and bug fixes they've made so the source bases stay in sync.

  6. It's bad enough ... by jerodd · · Score: 4
    ... that people tend to refer to a GNU system with a Linux kernel as ``Linux'', but it's even worse when people refer to a BSD system with a BSD/Mach kernel as ``DarwinLinux''. This is the best evidence of seen yet that Apple is willing to do anything to ride on the coattails of GNU, Linux, freed software, and ``Open Source''. Sadly, many have been all to eager to help them.

    Apple, like Sun, IBM, Oracle, SGI, and Microsoft, are the enemy. They pollute the world with more non-freed software aimed at the horizontal market. If Apple is really committed to GNU/Linux, they will release their Mac OS GUI under a freed software licence such as the GPL. So far, they've only displayed a willingness to release code that was already freed (e.g. Mach) under a more-restrictive licence.

    Just because Apple is anti-Microsoft does not mean they are our friends. Yes, they have produced nice hardware, but so has Microsoft--I like the Microsoft IntelliMouse. That doesn't mean I embrace Microsoft's vision of one operating system for the entire world.

    Apple is more proprietary than Microsoft--Microsoft has usually shown a willingness towards open hardware designes. Apple won't even come that far. As far as Apple is concerned, they should be the only hardware vendor. Standards-based specifications such as SCSI or USB help this situation somewhat, but I recall in recent history a great difficulty on the part of the LinuxPPC team in getting decent specs on the iMac.

    Hopefully, anal freed-software fanatics such as I will be able to steer the DarwinLinux group in the right direction. I certainly wouldn't mind any improvements in FreeBSD, as I've found it a wonderful kernel (I just want Debian GNU/FreeBSD ;þ). I am not writing this to show my hate for Apple; I'm simply pointing out that they are yet another huge corporation, such as my beloved IBM, that tends not to have any respect for the lowly hacker such as you and I.

    --
    --jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
  7. Re:NetBSD? Linux? Darwin? huh? by GeneralTao · · Score: 3

    I've always refused to get into the whole "name debate" thing. But doesn't it seem strange that they would call it "Darwin Linux" when the actual Linux kernel is conspicuously missing?

    Thanks for the info, BTW.

    --
    --- Tao